Wikipedia

Talk:Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman/Archive 1

< Talk:Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Paine Ellsworth in topic Chief, or chiefess
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Requested move 3 August 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Henry Hoolulu Pitman → Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman – Should have a punctuation between two o's, which has been used for Hawaiian names. George Ho (talk) 06:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I found two sources, BeenAroundAWhile: book and (some) article. --George Ho (talk) 05:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
The use of the ʻOkina (not a punctuation) wasn't that common until after the Hawaiian Renaissance when authors become more attentive to the rules of the language. Wikipedia has generally supported the use of the ʻOkina for orthographical correctness despite the difference of sources. Most modern articles that have dealt with the renewed interest in this figure uses the spelling for Hoʻolulu. I'm neutral to its use in the article title since changing title can often impedes searchability. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems to be used in English-language sources.--Cúchullain t/c 21:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. The result of this move should not in anyway affect the use of the ʻOkina in the article body much like the articles Liliuokalani and Kingdom of Hawaii which use ʻOkina in the article body but not in the title. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - if his name uses diacritics then the article title should match that - if it doesn't then it shouldn't. But, as I have stated previously, the name displayed in the article needs to match the article title - having it any other way just looks sloppy. GiantSnowman 15:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    • As I stated before, I strongly disagree since we have precedent for this in many Hawaii related articles including a whole bunch if place names and its the Hawaii Wiki projects guidelines to stick to orthographical correction in Hawaiian language names. Plus no Wiki rules dictates spelling in article must match it's title and sloppiness is in the eye of the beholder. I will wait for this request to play itself out but I will be restoring the Okina in the body per my above rationale regardless the decision. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

As one that helped write that portion of the project guidelines...no that is not what it says. It says that all proper names , place names and group names should be spelled using the diacritics of the existing spelling. It is not Wikipedia's place to attempt to "correct" name spellings. If it can be demonstrated that the correct use of diacritics should be used...it should be used. I don't understand KAVEBEAR's misinterpretation of this guideline since he participated in the discussion. This is also the second time since that discussion that I have seen the editor interpret the guideline in an inaccurate manner. this stems from a discussion at Pa'u riders. Not dredging that up again...but the result was a consensus that names should be spelled as they are written by the subject, group or organization and that the apostrophe should be replaced by the Okina even when it is used by the source because most keyboards do not allow its use and is only a substitute for the okina.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Mount Auburn family marker and grave marker

Indian

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For the purpose of writing a footnote, can anyone provide good scholarly sources discussing the use of the descriptive Indian by Euro-Americans to refer to non-Indian people like Polynesians? I've seem this term before in French sources to refer to Queen Pomare and the people of Mangareva.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Painting

Latest comment: 9 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion
  •  
    Better quality but seems heavily edited and table is cropped
  •  
    Resolution too low. Also there is no idea if the original portrait is a full-body portrayal or only of the torso
  •  
    Full body print from a 1910 Hawaiian newspaper, which claims to be a photograph taken on Washington Street, Boston.

Hello. Are there any editors in the area of the Peabody Essex Museum who would like to help me get a higher quality picture of the portrait of Henry Pitman from the Peabody Essex Museum and possibly help me find any information on the portrait itself like date of creation and artist? I don't know if the portrait is on display or in storage in the museum. Names to look for might be Henry Pitman, Timothy Henry Pitman, Timothy H. Pitman or even Henry Hoolulu Pitman.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Below is a conversation I had with User:Erodley at Talk:Peabody Essex Museum. But it seems he has disappeared from the face of Wikipedia.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Chief, or chiefess

Latest comment: 8 years ago29 comments4 people in discussion

KAVEBEAR With regard to your edit changing "chief" back to "chiefess", with an edit summary saying it is "popularly translation for alii wahine" [1], I had changed "chiefess" to "chief" because I hadn't found it a dictionary, and it appears nowhere in the article on Hawaii. It is very possible that it is in common use in Hawaii, but it is not used in Standard American English. If you want to use it, I recommended adding the phrase, "..., as a female chief, or alii wahine, is commonly called in Hawaii" after its first appearance in the article. Corinne (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that is necessary. It is really common if you actually read Hawaiian history. Check the biographies of other Hawaiian royals here on Wikipedia, also this article on JSTOR http://www.jstor.org/stable/453395 .--KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but readers of articles in Wikipedia should be able to understand what they are reading without first having read other articles. Also, that article in JSTOR says specifically that "chiefess" is a Hawaiian word that never came into common use on the mainland of the United States. That's why I still think it should be explained the first time it is used here. (Even words used as examples in the JSTOR article as being of similar construction – such as "authoress" – are not even used anymore.) Corinne (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but I really have to disagree on this. It's not in an official English dictionary, but the meaning is obvious when broken apart chief-ess. Adding the translation is unnecessary. We redirects of it and we have a wikidictionary entry for it.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry but the editor is actually correct but the answer is not to change the female to the male but use the correct Hawaiian verbiage. The correct term is aliʻi wahine (female of nobility).--Mark Miller (talk) 02:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, User:Corinne. I believe your concern was that chiefess can't be found in some dictionaries correct. Can you provide another comment on this? I don't agree with the insertion of "Ke Alii (The Noble)" for many reasons. The term High Chief is used by scholars in this field, the translation high chief(ess) is used in the academic sources this article is citing, and chiefess is found in all those other dictionaries I've provided link to. The translation or use of the term Miller is proposing is marginal at best and not found in any of the references I am using here or by any of the historians that I am getting the information on Pitman from. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Right now, both I and this editor have agreed that the use of chief and chiefess is not correct. The proper title for a noble of the Hawaiian Kingdom...which is not an Indian tribe, is noted above.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I also know that I received a public thank you to my response above by the editor, Corinne, that leads me to believe that my posts was agreed upon by the posting editor.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
"The proper title for a noble of the Hawaiian Kingdom...which is not an Indian tribe, is noted above" — No, the accepted translation during the Kingdom was "chief"/"chiefess", the term is also still accepted in the scholarship unless you are speaking or writing in Hawaiian. Chief/chiefess do not denote an Indian tribe for the same reason that emperor do not solely denote the rulers of the Roman Empire or King the rulers of Old Germanic Europe (where the term first was applied) or Prince/Princess denote the leading citizen of the late Roman Republic. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Corinne's problem was with the potential misconception of the spelling of "chiefess" and asking if an explanation of the title can be inserted. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I will seek a consensus before any reverting. This may require a RfC. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
It does not require an RFC. It just means you are not satisfied by the current opinions of the two editors that oppose you on sensitive translations of the meanings of a Hawaiian noble per the originating language. Hawaiians are not Indians nor a tribe or other things many people of the west confuse with the Hawaiian fist nation. As it is you describe the person as Hawaiian-American but then pipelink to "Native Hawaiian". That is not very clarifying as Hawaiian nationals were not the same as Native Kanakas.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Hawaiian-American is the term used by the Civil War historians on Pitman. The term chief/chiefess is used by historians. "Hawaiians are not Indians nor a tribe or other things many people of the west confuse with the Hawaiian fist nation" - use of chief/chiefess does not make readers think about this for the same reason calling Akihito an Emperor instead of 天皇 Tennō does not confuse modern day Japan with ancient Rome. I still need to find out Corinne's stance at this point, but regardless RFC can be sought for a clearer consensus. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
So you took this straight from the source and are not just summarizing the facts but paraphrasing the potentially inaccurate description (as well as a possible copyright issue) of a "Hawaiian-American" who died about thirty years before the end of the kingdom and you don't see the clarification issue? Let me spell it out. Hawaiian is a nationality, Native Hawaiian (Kanaka Maoli) is an ancestry. Hawaiian American is not clear for the period. It does need some clarification.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
What else to call a person who was a Hawaiian national by birth, a Native Hawaiian by maternal ancestry, a Bostonian American of remote English descent by paternal ancestry and also residency (which is explained in the article)? But if it is such a problem then I am not oppose to removing it because its removal removes nothing from the fact. Suggested change - "was a Hawaiian-American Union Army soldier" to "was an Union Army soldier of Native Hawaiian and American descent." Also this has no relevance to the rest of the stuff in this section. Also are you seriously claiming that my use of a term used in the scholarship is a copyright violation of these historians and that the historians using it has explicit copyrights to this hyphenated word. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't see that as a common phrase for Native Hawaiians no. If it is not a common phrase it is a copyright issue.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I have changed that to "...an American Union Army soldier of Native Hawaiian descent". Per you having no opposition to a change.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I specifically refered to the Hawaii Civil War historians in reference to the terms direct application to Henry Pitman not it's usage overall. The term is more common than you would think. Jason Momoa has been called a Hawaiian-American. I have no objection to the change. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
..and more inaccurate than you think. What is Hawaiian? Is it a native of the state, the island or the kingdom? There is no Californian-American. Hawaiians today...are Americans, period. At the time of this subjects life, he was a Hawaiian National by birth...but an American as a birthright. He did not fight in the union army as a Hawaiian National. The Kingdom of Hawaii was neutral during the civil war. Claiming him to be a "Hawaiian-American" union soldier is simply not accurate. It is also not a phrase I can actually find so, I do believe it is not a common enough phrase to use without a copyright issue.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
You can claim that it lacks clarification which is where we are in clear agreement. You can't claim it is not a common enough phrase (because you can't find it) thus claim that I am paraphrasing or that the term is under copyrighted. I am confused by this allegation of copyright violation on a term that dates all the way back to the Territorial period [2]. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not the one making the claims here just to filibuster. You are. I do believe that the use of High Chiefess is deprecated for must modern scholarship. Ke Alii (is the actual term and no need for a gender term except when used as a description and not a title) and is used is such places as the Pauahi Foundation of the Kamehameha Schools.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
You need to demonstrate that with scholarly sources discussing the term's usage not a reference to modern organization/foundation names. And no the name of one foundation is not evidence of accepted terminology. That Pauahi Foundation to my knowledge supports a scholarship at Kamehameha Schools which is part of the larger Bishop Estate. Kamehameha Schools' biography of their founder still calls her Princess while Ke Alii is relegated to the caption on that page [3]. Bishop Museum, another of Pauahi's legacy, calls their founder a Princess [4]. Here is also a link to 268 pages/pdfs in the kbse web domain that continue to uses the term chiefess as a translation. Again this demonstrates nothing (also my tangent to Bernice Pauahi Bishop was not needed) unless you have the modern scholarship to indicate that the term is depreciated (and connotes Indian-ness) or that Ke Ali'i the more accepted more than English translation of chief/chiefess. Along the line of this scholarly article on the usage of Latin-American vs Latin American. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I do not need to demonstrate anything at this point. Sorry, but it is my firm belief that current scholarship does prefer the Hawaiian Language use of the term alii instead of chief. In this instance the point is that there is no translation of Chiefess. THAT is the original point. There is no gender in the title and the correct TITLE is Ke Ali'i not High chief. The gender issue was raised by another editor and I agreed. You still don't. Fine, but it that doesn't make you right nor has any such demonstration been brought forward from you.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The original point raised by Corinne was chiefess was not in the common English dictionary. She never raised a single concern about the usage of chief or high chief in front of his grandfather or his great-grandfather's name. Your edits and your comments (of mistranslation and connotation to Indian-ness) were not in the concerns raised by her...I am not claiming to be right or wrong; I am following what is in the source which shows chief/chiefess is widely used as a translation to refer to an ali'i, STILL TO THIS DAY. You are though by stating which is correct or not. There is no such thing as a correct or incorrect title (only what is strictly in the Hawaiian language and what is a English translation) which is what your trying to argue without sources to discredit a translation of Ali'i which has been used and is still used by scholarly sources including the majority of the ones being used to cite this article's content. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
KAVEBEAR I appreciate your confidence in my opinions, but I'm not the best person to help sort this out. I only questioned the use of "chiefess" because I had never heard the word before. Mark Miller You may have some valid points, but I think next time you ought to make an effort to keep the two issues raised here separate. You've mingled your objections to two different things, so the discussion has gotten messy. Perhaps Paine Ellsworth can help resolve the two issues. Corinne (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Corinne, and sorry because my lexicon calls "-ess" merely a suffix to denote female form, which means that it can be added to a word, such as "chief", whenever the writer wants no confusion that the female gender is meant. It does not have to be applied any more than "actress" must be used for a "female actor" – "actor" is a word without gender and is used for males and females on the boards. So the determination as to whether or not to use "chiefess" has to be whether or not it is important to stress that the female form of "chief" is meant. Otherwise, "chief" like "actor" can be used to denote either sex. The -ess suffix is finding less and less application in this era of the history of the English language. As to the other issue of whether to use the English term or the Hawaiian, all I can say is that this is the "English" Wikipedia after all, so "chief" should suffice unless it is important to make the gender distinction. Happy holidays! Paine  03:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, User:Paine Ellsworth. That is one of my rationale too. This is English Wikipedia which should warrant the use of an English translation above Hawaiian ones (although this is not a case against the usage of Hawaiian language terms). We can see this example in other non-European royals including the present Emperor of Japan - who is really would have to be called a Tenno not an "emperor" if we would to use the other user's rationale. The Hawaiian language translation may deserve a mention maybe as a following sentence or footnote of clarification but ultimately the English translation should be used. Although, I think the most important question that needs to be asked is what are the sources using and the answer is chief/chiefess. They are accepted translation used in the academic sources I am using for this article which talk about his mother and his grandfather and great-grandfather in relation to him...There is also the double accusation/claim being made that the usage of chief/chiefess is deprecated and negatively connotates Indian-ness (despite the near universal usage of chief to refer to the leaders of indigenous groups across the world) which I hold to be wrong because of the lack of sources for the first claim, the abundant usage of the term in the scholarly sources from Hawaiian history (including the ones used here speaking directly about Pitman) and the lack of source or basis for the second allegations of Indian-ness.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Chief? Deprecated? First of all, I am part American Indian (I suppose to be PC I should say "Native American") and I am not the least bit offended by words like "chief". Secondly, insofar as being "deprecated", someone needs to realize what the "C" in "CEO" stands for – and what is President Obama's title but "Commander in Chief"? Chief is a common term for the leader of, well, any group of people, even a newspaper "Editor-in-Chief" (remember what Jimmy Olsen always called his boss, Perry White?). "Chief" isn't even close to being deprecated in the English language, and by no means does it refer either singularly or negatively to any leader of any group/tribe of people anywhere in the world. Happy holidays! Paine  03:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, User:Corinne. I mainly asked you to respond here because Mark Miller was using your previous comments and your thanks to fuel his argument and his claims that his version possess more consensus, so I wanted to ask if that was true before preceding. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Cite errors

Latest comment: 8 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

@KAVEBEAR: My browser shows red errors on select sourcing. If you don't see that, perhaps it is because I have User:Ucucha/HarvErrors installed as a script (something I would recommend to everyone). I'll list the errors here, and Help:CS1 errors#invisible_char is what they are all pointing to. I've never dealt with this issue before, but I noticed that removing the Hdl template clears the error. All I can do is tell you what I see as errors:

  • Kai, Peggy (1974). "Chinese Settlers in the Village of Hilo Before 1852"
Red error message says: C0 control character in |id= at position 58 (help)
  • Manning, Anita; Vance, Justin W. (2014). "Hawaiʻi at Home During the American Civil War". Hawaiian Journal of History (Honolulu: Hawaiian Historical Society)
Red error message says: C0 control character in |id= at position 60 (help)
  • O'Connor, Kaori (1997). "Thomas Spencer and "a Visit to Kīlauea"". Hawaiian Journal of History (Honolulu: Hawaiian Historical Society)
Red error message says: C0 control character in |id= at position 58 (help)
  • Schmitt, Robert C. (1998). "Hawaiʻi's War Veterans and Battle Deaths". Hawaiian Journal of History (Honolulu: Hawaiian Historical Society)
Red error message says: C0 control character in |id= at position 58 (help)
  • Kam, Ralph Thomas (2009). "Commemorating the Grand Army of the Republic in Hawaiʻi: 1882–1930". Hawaiian Journal of History (Honolulu: Hawaiian Historical Society)
Red error message says: C0 control character in |id= at position 60 (help)

Good luck with this. — Maile (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be a problem stemming from a change in Template:Cite. Like for Velociraptor example.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 14:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Null character error message appearing in citations.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  @KAVEBEAR: Oh, yeah, I see now. It's the citation module itself. I see by your link that people are working on correcting that. — Maile (talk) 14:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
The error seems to be the hdl linking to Evols.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that seems to be it. Just remove the hdl link as they are convenience links only and are not relevant to the bibliography. Let's try a normal url link in the title and see if that helps.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
No, this system is widely used in high quality Wikipedia article. The problem will be fixed in mid-Decemeber across the wiki sphere.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh, on this, you just have to wait if you know this to be an issue to be addressed in short time. I won't make changes if you are sure this will be fixed and not be an issue. I know this is an issue on other articles with some coding etc. of the main project. the Wikigods will deal with it.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Prose

Latest comment: 8 years ago19 comments3 people in discussion

@KAVEBEAR: I think it might help your FAC nomination if you request assistance from Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. I was just reading the Legacy section (haven't read anything else) and found the first sentence repetitive and confusing. Firstly, "The memory of Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman was remembered" was a bit redundant there. I think what you are probably trying to say is that he has been honored by descendants carrying his name, and by one public eulogy. And the rest of the section seems to be about the public memorization efforts for all Hawaii's military veterans of his era. It wouldn't hurt to have an uninvolved editor do some tweaking for you throughout the article. There are always a lot of little things that help lift an article up, even as it is going through FAC. I don't know what you're open to on this, but it can't hurt. And I would certainly encourage you to be open to assistance from others. — Maile (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I did. User:Corinne copy edit this already. See the template above. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the first section was about that and the last two paragraphs are about modern public memorization of him and all the veterans. "The memory of Henry..." isn't meant to serve as a opening sentence for the entire section. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, OK. It was just a suggestion. — Maile (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
If you have a suggestion on how you would rewrite the legacy section, that would help.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
@KAVEBEAR: Let me think about this a bit. I was looking at the copy editing done on November 10, and it seems to have been rather lightweight. And I think you need more help than that. You know, if it confuses me, it confuses others. Right up front let me say that "became a successful American businessman" is somewhat vague. I tried accessing the source on that one, and it doesn't fully put up on my system. But it looks like this Benjamin Franklin Keolaokalani Pitman was from Boston. But let me suggest a different scenario:
  • Up on the "Early life and family" section, list Benjamin there as a Boston businessman. Omit "Successful", but if you could mention what business he was in, that would be helpful.
Benjamin Franklin Keolaokalani Pitman was the brother. Benjamin Pitman was the father. The Benjamin mentioned in the "Early life and family" section was the father who was involved in whaling merchant work, plantation and governmental bureaucratic work. The Benjamin mentioned in the legacy section is his brother who was a L. P. Hollander & Co. and I think successful/prosperous was used in describing him in some of the newspaper accounts and his Almira's book surrounding his revisit to Hawaii in 1917.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I already understood the difference between father and son, but didn't think I needed to put the full name of the brother on this talk page. All I'm saying, is that since his siblings are mentioned in the "Early life and family" section, it is appropriate there to mention the brother's later profession.— Maile (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Your suggesting that I mention his brother's later profession after the list of siblings? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
That's the tough decision. How to incorporate the story of all these side characters into a biography of Henry's life. His brother and sister were extremely interesting figures in their own right but I found it difficult/relevant to write about them in this area when I've already gone into so many sentences talking about his parents and ancestors. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Under Legacy section, change that sentence to → When Pitman's brother Benjamin returned to Hawaii in 1917 with his wife Almira, they discovered a grandson of a nephew (can you name the nephew?) was named Kealiʻi i Kaua i Pakoma (meaning "Chief that fought the Potomac") in honor of his deceased older brother.
The change would lose the qualifiers which gave a description of his younger brother's adult life and his wife's full name, which are information worthy of note. No idea who the nephew was. Is your problem that it is not in the source directly after the sentence? If a reference is needed for the qualifiers; they can easily be pulled from the other one used in the article now. The citation following that sentences only contains information about the son of the nephew and his name. I just didn't want to overload one sentences with information with citation just on the qualifiers. Here is how I am thinking of it. If I want to properly cite a sentence saying Abraham Lincoln, president of the US, did X, do I need a source to cite that Lincoln did X (a source that doesn't call Lincoln a president) and another source stating Lincoln was the president of the US? It seem to me the source stating Lincoln was the president of the US would be unnecessary since the point trying get across is that he did X.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't thinking about the sourcing, except that I wasn't able to read the full content about the brother's profession (which might be my browser, not your article). I was thinking the sentence is too long and the qualifier you see, to my eyes is diverting from Henry. It could be shortened up by putting the brother's profession in the other section I mentioned. — Maile (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Actually upon second thought, "who became a successful American businessman in later life" might be an inaccurate description. He seems to have become a member of the firm of L. P. Hollander & Co. according to the sources. I shall remove the qualifier for now. I agree that it might divert attention in an already long sentence. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I was just sitting here thinking how convenient it would be if people like the brother had their own little stub article that could be expanded at leisure.— Maile (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I thought of that too and been gathering information to create these articles. A Hawaii in the American Civil War article would be also really useful in general. But I have a strong opinion against the creation of stubs or unfinished work and when I don't have the energy (I have lost a lot of energy or drive for article creation in the past few years just because it is a lot of work) to write a good article, I won't opt toward creating a stub just to get the information out there. This article sat in my userspace for more than a year before I decide to finish it after I started reading the new scholarship surrounding him done in Hawaii. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  The opening of the paragraph looks much better now. In fact, in reading this now, I think this took care of my confusion on that section. I like the edits you did. — Maile (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
That's a start. I'd have to do a lot of thinking about this. — Maile (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I am reviewing the article as well for FAC. It is great to see Maile66 also looking into this. This editor is very patient and helpful!--Mark Miller (talk) 04:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
@Mark Miller: I've been where @KAVEBEAR: is, on my first FAC. KAVEBEAR and I have at different times been editors on the same Hawaii biographies. He's been really helpful by later supplying images, and in one case helping to keep the original article title when editors decided to move it without discussion. You might say this is pay it forward as I was taught by those very good people at WPMilitary History. Looking back, my first FAC was on shakey legs and I didn't realize it at first. There were some harsh comments at FAC. But most of the review were those very patient WPMH people who helped me before that on Peer Review and A-class review, and continued to help me through FAC. I learned a lot from that project. — Maile (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh yeah, the people at PRMilitary History are really great. I don't participate as much as I should but I watch a lot.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Images lack source information

Latest comment: 8 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

The source of the image (not the painting) is what is missing. The source is not the institute where the painting is located but where the digital image comes from. This is part of image use policy and FA criteria. Most of the images lack proper source information. How was the image actually created are acquired for our use? Was it taken by the uploader or copied from a digital library?--Mark Miller (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

It appears the images were not reviewed in the October GA review. This is also a matter of GA criteria.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that is how Wikimedia operates. If you see a problem with the two images, you should file a deletion request. The images are not online (so there is no link to anything) and were provided to me directly by PEM thus the source is the institution.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
If you refuse to divulge where the images come from, of course they will be deleted but yes, the lack of essential information is a GA and FA requirement for Image Use Policy. Please understand, this is as important to me to get this right and per policy and guidelines to allow this to be stay GA as well as move forward to FA. If you feel I am incorrect, please demonstrate such with policy and or guidelines.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I've told you the images come from PEM.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
What does that mean? Did you receive them via e-mail from a particular person? Then you must attribute that person and it might (don't know for sure) need OTRS verification.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
The editor has linked other discussions from Wikipedia to this discussion on commons and is relevant here since the editor is not answering questions on this talk page.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with Mark. Even if the works are public domain, we need to have a source for the digitization, and this needs to be explicitly marked. Otherwise we have no confirmation that the image is what it is claimed to be (for instance). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Henry_Hoʻolulu_Pitman/Archive_1&oldid=1242577919"